Saul and the Monarchy: A New Look

Simcha Shalom Brooks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351902113
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The negative biblical presentation of King Saul of Israel has been biased in favour of David at the expense of Saul. This book presents a more positive picture and more realistic view of the culture of the period extending from Saul to the schism. Simcha Shalom Brooks explores a number of controversial issues such as the historicity of the biblical text on which so many modern scholars are sharply divided; that David was ambitious and coveted Saul's throne, and even though David became king, the people continued to support the house of Saul. This book makes a valuable contribution to the current biblical debate as to the existence of ancient Israel in the Iron Age 1 Period. Simcha Shalom Brooks draws on literary, historical and archaeological material to present a balanced view of the period.

Chapter 1
Ancient Israel: Fiction or Historical Reality?

It has been mentioned in the Introduction that the historicity of ancient Israel in the Iron Age Periods is a subject of much debate among biblical scholars (Fritz and Davies 1996: 11–17). Since this research is about Saul of Israel, some of these debates should be included in this chapter; attempts should also be made to identify possible historical events within the biblical text. Therefore the following issues will need to be discussed: the external evidence for the existence of Israel; the textual evidence for writing in ancient Israel; the problems in using the biblical text to extract historical data; the modern debate concerning history and historiography in the biblical text; the emergence of historical writing in Israel; the sources relating to the study of the monarchy; the complexity of the source material in the Books of Samuel; and the methods to be employed in this thesis.

External Evidence for the Existence of Ancient Israel

There is a wealth of relevant documents available from the ancient Near East. They are by non-Israelites, and therefore their authors had no reason to exaggerate information about Israel. These documents provide numerous references, of which the following are only a few examples. The oldest reference to ‘Israel’ comes from the Merneptah Stele, which was discovered at the funerary temple of Merneptah in Thebes.¹ The stele tells of Merneptah’s campaign in Canaan where he defeated a people called ‘Israel’ in Canaan’s central highland. In this text the word ‘Israel’ is preceded by a sign which indicates that the term ‘Israel’ refers to people and not to a geographical area (Rogerson 1989: 117–18) and that the region in which this Israel is located is the central highlands (Singer 1988: 1; Kitchen 1995:52, 2003:220). The fact that Pharaoh’s scribe bothered to include ‘Israel’ on the stele must surely be quite significant. It could indicate perhaps that ‘Israel’ were already a settled people in the region long before Merneptah’s campaign.

More external references to Israel come from the Moabite Stele,² which refers to Omri (c. 885-874 BCE) King of Israel who had Moab under his control for a long period of time; in the Black Obelisk of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (c. 858-824 BCE) there is a mention of Jehu ‘son of Omri’ who sent tribute to the Assyrian king; again, in the Annals of the Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser III (c.744-727 BCE) the king states that he led all the inhabitants of the land of Omri with their possessions to Assyria; in the same annals kings Menahem and Pekah of Israel are mentioned; and also Ahaz = la-u-ha-zi, c. 740-725 BCE of Judah is mentioned, as bringing tribute; in the Annals of the Assyrian king, Sargon II (c. 721-715 BCE) boasts that he conquered all the land of Omri (Halpern 1995: 30). Although these documents are much later than the period of Saul, in my view it is important to mention them, since the existence of such texts implies that Israel must already have existed before that period.

The latest controversial discovery is one which refers to the ‘House of David’. This is the Tel Dan Stele, which was discovered in the excavation led by A. Biran in July 1993 (Biran and Naveh 1993: 81). Two new pieces of the stele were discovered in the June excavation of 1994 (Biran and Naveh 1995: 1). The language of the inscription is early Aramaic and its script may be dated to the ninth century BCE (Biran and Naveh 1995: 87). This discovery and its decipherment provoked a ‘war of words’ among scholars. However, the significant thing about this stele is that it contains a reference to Bytdwd, the first evidence for the ‘House of David’ outside the biblical text. The reason for the rejection of this decipherment stems from the fact, as P. Davies (1994: 54) argues, that each word in the inscription is divided by a customary dot to mark the word-divider. Yet, there is no such dot between Byt and Dwd. Davies claims that Biran and Naveh read these six letters as two words, therefore producing the possibility of translating the second part as ‘David’. Davies suggests various possibilities for translating Dwd, such as ‘beloved’ or ‘uncle’ (Davies 1994: 55). But, although such translations of Dwd are correct in other contexts they do not offer an alternative meaning to Dwd within the context of the inscription. G.A. Rendsburg (1955: 22) claims that the word divider is not used in the expression Bytdwd (‘House of David’) simply because the scribe viewed Bytdwd as one entity not requiring a word-divider.³ According to A. Rainey (1994: 47) ‘a word-divider between two components in such a construction is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well established proper name’. Such an example of a name made of two components exists in the letters BL’M.BRB’R (Balaam, son of Beor) in the inscription from Deir ‘Alla. Although there is a word divider, a dot, between BL’M (Balaam) and BRB’R (son of Beor), there is no word divider between BR (son [of]) and B’R (Beor). Another such example is found in the personal name BRRKB (Bir.Rakib) in the ancient Aramaic inscriptions from Zinjirli in south Turkey. Rainey claims that the same situation occurred in BYTDWD.

What is the evidence for writing in ancient Israel?

The lack of a great quantity of external evidence from Israel in the period we are concerned with raises the question as to when the Israelites did begin to write. Unlike Mesopotamia and Egypt in the ancient Near East, the region south of the Levant, i.e. Syria-Palestine, has produced hardly any epigraphic evidence which could be used for establishing its history. Most external evidence relating to ancient Israel derives from non-Israelite sources, while the main source of information from within Israel is the biblical text itself. This lack of epigraphic material is caused not by the Israelites not being engaged in writing but probably because of the material on which they wrote. The Mesopotamians wrote on clay tablets which are practically indestructible: baked or unbaked tablets can withstand any conditions and keep indefinitely (Chiera 1996:17). The Egyptians, on the other hand, wrote on papyrus. But although papyrus is a perishable material, the dry climate preserved it from deterioration. However, it is possible that the Israelites wrote on parchment and papyrus, and that the damp climatic conditions prevented their survival. So far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned, although some of these scrolls refer to earlier events, these were later reproductions.⁴ But it is also important to note that the Iron I Period is a transitional period in the development of writing. This is the transition from cuneiform writing on clay (e.g. the Amarna Tablets) to writing with ink on ostrac. Many of the documents may have easily perished through this process.⁵

The biblical text testifies to the activity of writing as indicated in the following examples, even though some of these examples (Deuteronomy, the books of Samuel, the books of Kings and Jeremiah) are dated by scholars to the seventh century BCE, i.e about 400 years after Saul: ‘And write them on the doorposts of your gates’, (Deut. 6:9) ‘When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests’ (Deut. 17:18). ‘In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah’ (2 Sam.11:14), and ‘So she (Jezebel) wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal…’ (1 Kgs. 21:8).⁶ Isaiah 10:19 states: ‘The remnant of the trees of his forest will be so few that a child can write them down.’ We also know from 1 Kings 4:3 that king Solomon had two scribes and Isa. 8:1 gives a clue to the implements used: ‘The Lord said to me, take a great roll and write on it with a common pen’, where ‘a great roll’ probably refers to a parchment or papyrus roll and a ‘common pen’ refers to an etching pen (Duvshani 1967: 24). Jeremiah 36:17–18 provides an interesting account of how a scroll was written by dictation: ‘Then they questioned Baruch, tell us now how did you write all these words? … Baruch answered them, “He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink on the scroll”‘.

There is also a variety of references in the biblical text that indicates that other books were also composed which were not included in the biblical text, and did not survive. For example, the book of Numbers (21:14) quotes the Book of Wars; the book of Joshua refers to the Book of Jashar‘(10:13); 1 Kings 14:19 and 2 Kgs. 10:34 mention the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel; 1 Kings 14:29 and 2 Kgs. 20:20 mention the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah; 1 Chron. 29:29 refers to other sources, stating: ‘Now the acts of king David, from the first to the last, are written in the records of the seer Samuel, and in the records of the prophet Nathan, and in the records of the seer Gad’; 2 Chron. 12:15 refers to the ‘records of the prophet Shemaiah and of the seer Iddo…’ and 2 Chron. 20:34 refers to ‘Annals of Jehu son of Hanani’. None of these books survived, only these references to them. It could be argued that these sources are imaginary. If this is so, it does not alter the point that the Chronicler was referring to a process that was familiar to his readers.

There is also external evidence for writing activities in ancient Israel. Inscriptional discoveries show that writing was used in Israel for a variety of reasons. A.R. Millard (1985: 301) distinguished three such classes: monumental, formal and occasional, of which the last two are much better represented, including, e.g., the Gezer Calendar, where the form of the letters have an archaic appearance and scholars date the tablet to the tenth century BCE; the Samaria Ostraca, written in cursive Hebrew, dated to the time of Jeroboam II c. 787-746 BCE (McCarter 1996: 103); the Siloam Tunnel inscription written to commemorate the building of the tunnel by Hezekiah in the eighth century;⁷ the Arad Letters, more than a hundred of them, inscribed in Hebrew (also in Aramaic and other languages) dating to the eighth-sixth centuries BCE.⁸ Although these inscriptions are valuable for understanding various aspects of life in ancient Israel, they are not documents from which history can be deduced, as it can from king lists, annals, or inscriptions on walls of palaces and temples such as those of the Egyptians or Assyrians. But ‘the epigraphic discoveries show beyond any doubt that writing was known in Palestine during the period of Israelite rule’ (Millard 1972:98).

The Siloam inscriptions are the nearest to building inscriptions. However, these inscriptions do not give the name of the king under whom the work was carried out (Burrows 1955: 101). Conversely, 1 Sam. 15:12 states ‘Saul went to Carmel where he set a monument for himself, but there is as yet no archaeological trace of this. However, with regard to Saul, it is possible that the nature of his reign was such that it would be wrong to expect the survival of extra-biblical documents from it.

Generally, there is a lack of documentary evidence, especially for the Iron I period, not only for Israel, but also the whole region of the eastern Mediterranean including the Canaanites and the Philistines. One of the reasons is probably the social disruption that was quite extensive towards the end of the Late Bronze Age. It resulted in the loss of literary documents, while other archaeological evidence is difficult to decipher (McNutt 1990:143).

Problems in Extracting Historical data from the Bible

Having discussed the evidence for writing in ancient Israel and the lack of sufficient historical documents, the remaining problem is that we therefore heavily depend on the biblical text for the history of Israel. One of the difficulties is that literary documents have a long history of compilation, editing, and copying: therefore, the recording of events is hundreds of years later than the events themselves. Traditions were also passed orally from one generation to another over a long period of time in this way, and they were influenced by folkloristic motifs. One example is the motif of the young man or younger brother who becomes a prince or a ruler, which can be detected in the stories of Saul (1 Sam.9) and David (1 Sam. 16). Also there is the motif of a young person in opposition to his elders described in the stories about Samuel and the sons of Eli (1 Sam.3), and David and Saul.⁹ Another aspect of folklore is apparent in prominent figures (David, Moses and others) who attract traditions concerning events originally not associated with them at all. For example, the story of David’s killing of Goliath (1 Sam.17) may be based on an earlier story which tells of another hero called Elkhanan who did kill Goliath (2 Sam.21:19). Because of the folkloristic motifs, all these figures are taken by various biblical scholars to be unhistorical;¹⁰ yet the kind of story one often finds in folktales can have an historical character added later as a hero or evil character; and then as stories are handed down, one hero may be replaced by another.

J. Barr (1980:5) describes the writing of the Old Testament as a body of literature better entitled story than history; or a story which only in part could be described as history; or, borrowing Hans Frei’s term, as ‘history like’.

Another difficulty is that where questions as to the history of Israel are most significant, the relevant material in the biblical text is also religious literature (Burrows 1985:102; Malamat 1983:11). Biblical authors paid much attention to theological interests, which they considered crucial for the understanding of their past, for example 1 Samuel 13 and 14. On the other hand when it came to events which would be considered by a modern historian to be crucial, these are described very briefly and abruptly (e.g. 1 Sam. 31). Also, the biblical authors presupposed Yahweh’s involvement in human history (Miller 1976: 15) and that He was working out His supreme purpose for the benefit of his creatures, first for His chosen people and then for the rest of mankind. To the biblical writer history could not be the natural progress of civilisation, but the work of divine will fighting with foolish men, promising and warning, yet saving and blessing those who obeyed instruction (Burrows 1955: 128). Furthermore, Yahweh could act indirectly both through circumstances which, though seeming normal, would have been noticeable only through ‘eyes of faith’, as well as through signs and wonders (Miller 1976:16). Examples for these can be found in the book of Exodus, beginning with the account of Moses and the burning bush, continuing through the ten plagues and ending with the drowning of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (Exod.1–15).¹¹ These examples demonstrate Yahweh’s authority over nature. In them Yahweh not only controlled nature, but also Pharaoh’s heart. Yahweh’s explanation is logical: His purpose was not only to liberate His people but also to show His supernatural power over nature and human affairs. Thus, as far as the Israelite writer was concerned, this involvement by Yahweh was very significant. Such imputed significance should be taken into consideration when i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• 1 Ancient Israel: Fiction or Historical Reality?
• 2 Introduction to the Emergence of Monarchy
• 3 Saul and the Deuteronomist
• 4 Saul and David
• 5 King Saul: Origins and Achievements
• 6 Gibeah of Saul
• 7 From Saul to the Schism
• Summary and Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Modern Author Index
• Subjects, Places and Personal Names Index